Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/905/2021 on 22 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 22nd DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No.905 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Girish Chandra .....Petitioner
(Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate)
AND:
Divisional Forest Officer, Almora & Ors.
.....Respondents
(Mr. T.S. Phartiyal and Mr. G.S. Negi, Addl. C.S.C. for the State of
Uttarakhand)
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties
through video conferencing.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner
has sought the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned tender dated 03.04.2021
issued by respondent no.1 (contained
as Annexure No.1 to this writ
petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding
and directing the respondents to
consider the tender of the petitioner
for the old and New Lisa Divisions and
consider his bid and consequently
work may be directed to be awarded
if the tender of the petitioner being
the lowest.
3. Learned Additional C.S.C. appearing for
the State submits that pursuant to tender notice,
bids were received and work order has been issued
to successful bidder. In such view of the matter,
relief, as claimed in prayer no.(i), does not survive.
4. Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner has referred to para 7
of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of
respondent no.1, where reliance has been placed
upon a Government Order dated 28.11.1978 issued
by the Government of U.P., which provides that
tapping work should be given as per work ability,
condition of work and experience of past years. He
has also relied upon the last sentence of para 7 of
the counter affidavit, where it has been stated that
Forest Department gives priority to those resin
tappers who have experience of resin tapping in the
past.
5. Based on the said pleadings in the counter
affidavit, Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel
submits that since petitioner is engaged in tapping
of resin since last several years, therefore, they
have a preferential right of allotment of work of
tapping in view of their experience, ability and also
in view of the provisions contained in the
government policy.
6. This Court finds substance in the
submission made by learned Senior Counsel. Since
the respondents have admitted that due weightage
has to be given to experience in the work of tapping
resin, therefore the work experience of the
petitioner could not have been ignored.
7. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, writ petition is disposed
of with liberty to petitioner to make representation
to the concerned Divisional Forest Officer. If
petitioner makes such representation, concerned
Divisional Forest Officer shall look into the matter
and take appropriate decision in accordance with
law within six weeks from the date of receipt of
representation along with certified copy of this
order. It goes without saying that concerned
Divisional Forest Officer shall bear in mind the
provisions contained in G.O. dated 28.11.1978,
which has been relied in para 7 of the counter
affidavit.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Rajni
